If the IWW ran a strip mine it would still be destructive.  If the
Wobblies ran the world's largest lumber mill (Pacific Lumber's) they
would still need to clearcut to achieve full utilization of that mill.
If they did not continue exploiting natural resources in the most
expedient and efficient manner they would cease to be competitive with
their more capitalistic counterparts.
If the wobblies ran Monsanto the genetically engineered crops would
still pose unknown risks (and possibly known but not revealed risks as
is currently the case) and the pesticide and herbicide production and
use would still be toxic.  If the IWW ran Union Carbide the Bhopal
disaster still would have happened.
It could be that factories which put the workers and the environment
ahead of the market demand might find it harder to stay into business.
If a wobbly asks, "Would you like fries with that?" and doesn't wear a
smile, the meal just wouldn't taste as good.

Firstly, workers' control in capitalist society may have its limitations.
For example, will the workers have to compete on the market with other firms
which have lower labour costs and standards and will consumers be willing to
pay more money to buy collectively owned goods? If the firm deals with
production, this may depend on whether their may market are consumers or
other businesses. Some collectively run firms get around this, others
cannot.

Secondly, industries that are harmful to the environment or other humans.
Only people who are highly aware AND who have alternatives to living will
choose to close such industries. Again, in the situation that we still have
a capitalist society, few people would decide to close their factories and
possibly put themselves out of work.

In short, the problem is that workers' control in and of itself is not the
main goal and that the impact of industry, over-consumption and work need to
take a higher precedence in debates. People who espouse the retention of
exploitative industries haven't developed any green analysis yet. They are
probabilty a small but vocal minority amongst people like wobblies but they
are half- ass reformers.

L.

Yes there are technoapologists in the movement. My contact with it is
limited so I cannot say what percent of people in it are technoapologists
but if technoapologists now outweighed the side with some fundamental
environmental awareness, I'd be surprised.

I think there's a over-simplified and false connection here between leftist
anarchists and technoapologists because, although it may be true that many
leftist anarchists are technoapologists, these ideas of protectionist
centralism and mass revolutionary movements taking executive control do not
presuppose maintaining harmful levels of industrialization, nor does
anarcho-syndicalism. Some anarcho-syndicalists have even made serious
critiques of industrial civilization, although if you are from the US,
Canada or UK scenes, I suppose you do see a large segment of
technoapologists.